The Truth About Torture

A debate has erupted about the new film Zero Dark Thirty, and whether it inaccurately suggests that U.S.-sanctioned torture (aka “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques”) led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

That claim was memorably asserted within hours of bin Laden’s death by Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA‘s clandestine service in an interview with TIME. Rodriguez made the case more fully in his book, Hard Measures.

The definitive answer to whether there is a link between information gained through torture and the killing of Osama bin Laden is available to those with the necessary security clearances thanks to years of painstaking work by the staff of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In March 2009, the committee voted 14-1 to write a report on the history of the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, and its effectiveness, after reviewing and being shocked by CIA cables that described interrogations.

After Attorney General Eric Holder decided in Aug. 2009 to investigate whether interrogators had gone beyond the legal guidelines outlined for them by the Justice Department, Republican members of the committee pulled out of the SSCI effort to produce the report. The Democratic staff continued, reviewing some 6 million documents and ultimately writing a 6,000 page report with 35,000 footnotes. The report was adopted this week by the committee 9-6, with Republicans claiming errors and omissions.

The report remains classified and it is not clear when any of it will be made available to the public. SSCI chair Diane Feinstein released a statement on the committee’s adoption of the report, which she called “one of the most significant oversight efforts in the history of the United States Senate, and by far the most important oversight activity ever conducted by this committee.”

The report uncovers startling details about the CIA detention and interrogation program and raises critical questions about intelligence operations and oversight. I look forward to working with the president and his national security team, including the Director of National Intelligence and Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, to address these important issues, with the top priority being the safety and security of our nation.

Conducting oversight is sometimes a difficult and unpleasant task for all involved, but I am confident the CIA will emerge a better and more able organization as a result of the committee’s work. I also believe this report will settle the debate once and for all over whether our nation should ever employ coercive interrogation techniques such as those detailed in this report.

I strongly believe that the creation of long-term, clandestine ‘black sites’ and the use of so-called ‘enhanced-interrogation techniques’ were terrible mistakes. The majority of the Committee agrees.

Ultimately the renewed debate over Zero Dark Thirty shows that the U.S. has not come to terms with its embrace of torture after 9/11 and that doing so remains a crucial piece of unfinished business for Washington and the country.

Two final points: Soufan and Rodriguez agree that “enhanced interrogation” by Egyptian authorities produced bogus intelligence about collaboration between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, intelligence that Colin Powell used in 2003 to make the case for invading Iraq (see Hard Measures, pp. 52-53).

Lastly, for those who think waterboarding is not torture, I settle that issue in discussion with a variety of senior Bush administration officials here.

This is an observation on those that use torture and their long term success. The Shah in Iran. Hussein in Iraq. Hitler in Germany. There are many more. Pretty sure there is a correlation between the use of torture and the long term success and failure of a country.

Also, I am sure most people wish we had made a different decision about invading Iraq. You have to wonder where the Afghanistan war would be today, if we had concentrated on it instead of wasting our time and money in Iraq.

Finally, how many false confusions have police in the United States obtained from innocent people simply by keeping them up for hours on end without sleep or food or access to a bathroom? That is an "enhanced interrogation" method that has resulted in innocent Americans going to jail for crimes they didn't commit.

I'd love to engage in a drinking game of taking a shot every time Kevin calls someone an "anonymous coward" or "skippy" or some other childish nickname but I'm afraid I might die of alcohol poisoning within five posts.

Someone under the duress of torture will say or do anything to stop it. Many in the military and the intelligence community have pointed out as much, and this is precisely why it can't be considered an effective means of intelligence gathering. Besides, what does it say about our society if we're willing to stoop to such vile tactics?

The word toture has become a weasel word. By putting "having one's fingernails pulled out" in the same category as (a man) "being forced to wear women's underwear" the word has lost most of it's former meaning. But the people against enhanced interogation wish to use the medievil conotation of torture when wishing to abolish it. Sleep deprivation, while unpleasant, is not in the same category as " being drawn and quertered" or " raked over coals". Did interogation work in this instance? None of us in the public are privy to know. Might it work in some instance? That is quite a different question. If it is not effective then the question of its use is moot. Only effective strategies will be kept in the long run. The fact that many do not wish to prohibit it makes me wonder if it is perhaps effective in some instances.

@DonQuixotic Shock and Awe was a military bombing campaign. I don't know whether it succeeded in in its goal. But as for enhanced interogation, If as you say you know it doesn't work, then it will not be used. Serious people use what works. They are not playing games. If on the other hand and to your dismay it does work in some situations, then it will probably be used in such situations when deemed necessary. What matters most when matters are grave is "What really works" and little else.

outsider2011, it isn't all that bad. I don't mind if he says a 1-2 sentence prayer for the food. I always mention that I bought it and his mother cooked it though. I also say that while the good christians in the house are sitting around after dinner, the atheist will do the dishes.

@DonQuixotic I see no problem with accuracy providing the translators are good at listening to the interogated. The question for the interogator is "Is this person telling the truth?" That is not subjective. It is a proposition which must be tested. As to "what does this say about us?" Amoung other things "We are dead serious" and perhaps"We mean business (so tell the truth and you can become to comfortable again)"

outsider2011, not too long ago when his girlfriend was here for dinner, I threw in a quick prayer that had her almost crying. I said "Thank you for this food O'Lord. Please don't pull your botulism trick. I know you think it's funny but so many have died. Amen" Even my wife cracked a smile at that one.

outsider2011, just one example before I change the light in the motion detecter outside. A former girlfriend of our son was here a few years ago and out german shepherd jumped up on the couch. The girl frowned and asked my wife if we allowed dogs on the couch. My wife said "Sit anywhere you want to dear".

He can have a wicked sense of humor at times, but his mother and I are just in a different class. My wife can be brutal with her remarks. Sometimes even I am shocked by the things she says. I laugh, but I'm shocked.

Skippy, you've demonstrated that you intellect is at a very, very low level. Your writing indicates that you have, at best, a junior college education. There is no evidence of logic or reason in anything you write.

You simply can't make this stuff up. 3 Posts from Grovie here and no one that shows logic and reasoning, just pointless agitation and telling someone they're idiots.

@outsider2011@KevinGroenhagen@paulejb Skippy, you've demonstrated that you intellect is at a very, very low level. Your writing indicates that you have, at best, a junior college education. There is no evidence of logic or reason in anything you write.